I liken this argument to people judging athletes (Quarterbacks in football in partifuclar) based on how many championships (Superbowls) they've won. I HATE that argument. It's a team game, and yes a QB can have a dramatic impact on a team (much like, say a Chris Pronger can), but it's not the end all be all judge of a player. Just like, I don't believe winning a Stanley Cup is the end all be all of judging the Chris Pronger trade (or any trade). Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl, Dan Marino did not...does that mean Trent Dilfer is better or more successful than Marino? Maybe it's just that Dilfer's team excelled while Marino's failed. You can apply this same logic to evaluating trades IMO.

We're not talking about a team game here. We're talking about the decision a single man made with the assets at his disposal, and the logical justification for making that decision (to win a Stanley Cup). If that deal isn't about getting that done, then you don't make that deal. You're conflating two things that are not one and the same. It is not Chris Pronger's fault (exclusively) if we fail to win a Cup... that's not even Holmgren's "fault," per se. It's just the stakes of the deal he made...

We're not talking about a team game here. We're talking about the decision a single man made with the assets at his disposal, and the logical justification for making that decision (to win a Stanley Cup). If that deal isn't about getting that done, then you don't make that deal. You're conflating two things that are not one and the same. It is not Chris Pronger's fault (exclusively) if we fail to win a Cup... that's not even Holmgren's "fault," per se. It's just the stakes of the deal he made...

Conversely then, how could you argue, that if we won, that it was the trade that had done so? It's impossible. I just don't think it's possible to truly link a single move to winning a cup, nor do I think it's possible, or fair, to judge a transaction based on that.

Conversely then, how could you argue, that if we won, that it was the trade that had done so? It's impossible. I just don't think it's possible to truly link a single move to winning a cup, nor do I think it's possible, or fair, to judge a transaction based on that.

Considering Pronger's presence alone made every defensive pairing better I think it'd be pretty damn easy to say Pronger played a huge role in nearly winning the Cup. His performance in games five and six certainly played a part in eventually losing the Finals though.

Conversely then, how could you argue, that if we won, that it was the trade that had done so? It's impossible. I just don't think it's possible to truly link a single move to winning a cup, nor do I think it's possible, or fair, to judge a transaction based on that.

Again, you're conflating things. What you're saying is true. But there's a reason a rebuilding team doesn't trade for a 34 y/o Chris Pronger and give up multiple 1st round picks, a young D, etc.

Joffrey Lupul was overpaid. Sbisa was young. The first round picks were totally unnecessary.

I like the Pronger decision, absent the fact that first round picks were thrown around like candy.

We are talking about Chris Pronger here... I'm actually amazed that we held onto JVR and Giroux in that deal. We essentially flipped a bad contract and 3 late 1sts for the best defensemen in the game right now. I'll take that considering our team should be positioned to go on runs for the next 3-4 years

We are talking about Chris Pronger here... I'm actually amazed that we held onto JVR and Giroux in that deal. We essentially flipped a bad contract and 3 late 1sts for the best defensemen in the game right now. I'll take that considering our team should be positioned to go on runs for the next 3-4 years

It may be hindsight but we absolutely overpaid in that deal. By at least 1 first round pick, if not 2.

They had to dump Pronger for cap reasons and we were one of the few teams that even inquired about him.

It may be hindsight but we absolutely overpaid in that deal. By at least 1 first round pick, if not 2.

They had to dump Pronger for cap reasons and we were one of the few teams that even inquired about him.

I don't think so. Theres no way that over the course of the offseason there wouldn't be heavy interest in Chris F'ing Pronger, and I see no possible way the Ducks would ship him out for a ****** return such as just Lupul and Sbisa. They would have cleared salary elsewhere if it came to that. If we did somehow overpay by one late 1st round pick, then so be it, it was still worth it.

I don't think so. Theres no way that over the course of the offseason there wouldn't be heavy interest in Chris F'ing Pronger, and I see no possible way the Ducks would ship him out for a ****** return such as just Lupul and Sbisa. They would have cleared salary elsewhere if it came to that. If we did somehow overpay by one late 1st round pick, then so be it, it was still worth it.

The reporting at the time tells a much different story. At one point Homer upped his offer despite bidding against no other team. Again, that is absolutely 20/20 hindsight.

And good teams make late 1st rounders into quality players. On HF draft picks are either vastly overrated or underrated. Part of the cap ******** we are mired in is due to not having decent prospects in the AHL that will be paid next to nothing. Instead, we'll constantly be taking on veteran players. Eventually that bites a team in the ass.

The reporting at the time tells a much different story. At one point Homer upped his offer despite bidding against no other team. Again, that is absolutely 20/20 hindsight.

And good teams make late 1st rounders into quality players. On HF draft picks are either vastly overrated or underrated. Part of the cap ******** we are mired in is due to not having decent prospects in the AHL that will be paid next to nothing. Instead, we'll constantly be taking on veteran players. Eventually that bites a team in the ass.

I wouldn't advocate trading first round pick after first round pick every year, but there are players that are worth that. Chris Pronger in my mind is the ideal player for that situation. Now, if Homer decides to trade our next two 1st's in a similar situation then I will take issue with that. I think the team has enough young talent to withstand the loss of a couple 1st's.

Theres things I really disagree with Holmgren about (this offseason mostly), but I am a huge fan of the Pronger trade

Yes, he's a bit part of us getting to the Finals, but one season isn't a big enough sample for me to say "yup, totally worth it" given how much we gave up to get him, and the sort of situation those picks/prospects/players/cap dollars put us in over the next few years.

We don't necessarily have to win the Cup for it to be worth it, but at this point it's hardly decided one way or another. I mean, what if his game totally goes to hell this season and we're saddled with his salary and without all those assets we gave up to get him? It's obviously far from likely that it will, but you never know.

Pronger's value is not measured by the team's success or shortcoming unless he is a direct factor in the win or the loss. The fact that he WAS a direct contributor to the team's success is just a bonus. He did what was asked of him, and then he did more. We can't have expected more out of him.

We acquired Pronger with the goal of winning a Cup, not because it was his job to bring us a Cup.

The trade was worth it because if anyone went back in time, you would do the trade again. The only way the trade wouldnt be worth it is if you go back in time, knowing what we know now, and say that Pronger's contributions is not worthy of Lupul, Sbisa and the picks.

I take that trade every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Even without the Cup, although we certainly have more time to get that done with Pronger.

I go with this. Pronger is an impact defenseman, something this squad sorely needed. Pronger is probably in the top 5 in defensmen ranking, plays physical and adds some offense. The team doesn't get as far as it did without him, and unless his play takes a quick downturn or he gets injured, I don't think the talent given up would help the team be as good in the next 10 years.

Mock the thread but it's a legit question given the implications down the road. Right now it seems overly circumspect but we shall see in two to three years....

Not every trade is for an impact player such as Pronger. He was acquired b/c it was thought he would get the Flyers over the 36 year cupless hump. It almost happened but in the end they fell short as a team. Some people are already satisfied with what he brings..cup or not. Some people have higher expectations and should including management unless again playoff revenue is solely enough. The Lindros trade, for example, was meant to get an impact/superstar caliber player that it was thought would eventually deliver a cup....unfortunately the Flyers were 1 in done in 97 while Forsberg who we traded delivered a couple of cups and put together a hall of fame career. He will probably get in before Lindros does. At the time people were probably satisfied and saying the same things about Lindros..., worth it, the next one etc etc. In the end he didn't pan out and didn't HELP deliver a cup...period.

In the Rangers case where they mortgaged their future in Amonte and Weight for aging Oiler's players (Tikanen, Lowe, Messier etc) and Chicago players like Larmer they got a cup so maybe for the fans it was worth it but I'm sure in that 6 year playoff drought they were cursing up a storm. Again, IMO it's not that cut and dry just yet. I enjoyed the run but if it's another 1 and done then the novelty of the trade will wear out and this thread will be resurrected with a lot of what if's. That was the intention of the post.....it's for posterity sake. Let's all hope in the next two or three years there will be no doubt left that the trade was worth it. I just can't fathom how people can say right now with 100% certainty the trade "was worth it." With that kind of short term thinking there must be a lot of day traders on here....

We are talking about Chris Pronger here... I'm actually amazed that we held onto JVR and Giroux in that deal. We essentially flipped a bad contract and 3 late 1sts for the best defensemen in the game right now. I'll take that considering our team should be positioned to go on runs for the next 3-4 years

As has been said, nobody else was going after Pronger. The fact that Holmgren actually went and offered ANOTHER first round pick after already offering up Lupul, Sbisa, and a first is...mind boggling.

Don't get me wrong. I hate Sbisa. Hell, Pronger only makes 700k more than Lupul did. That's great. Do I miss Sbisa (or the potential Sbisa)? Sure, but I'll take that hit.

Throwing away first round picks for no apparent reason isn't cool.

And as I said, I support getting Chris Pronger. I like having Chris Pronger, just not throwing away an extra pick for no apparent reason.

Yes. Switch Pronger with Sbisa and Asham/Powe/Carcillo with Lupul and they prob don't make the playoffs if all the injuries still occur. Pronger was the lynchpin of this team in the playoffs and played ridiculous defense all year long. Luca Sbisa, while he is a good player, is not, and will never be Chris Pronger. I would do that trade ten times over.

Mock the thread but it's a legit question given the implications down the road. Right now it seems overly circumspect but we shall see in two to three years....

Not every trade is for an impact player such as Pronger. He was acquired b/c it was thought he would get the Flyers over the 36 year cupless hump. It almost happened but in the end they fell short as a team. Some people are already satisfied with what he brings..cup or not. Some people have higher expectations and should including management unless again playoff revenue is solely enough. The Lindros trade, for example, was meant to get an impact/superstar caliber player that it was thought would eventually deliver a cup....unfortunately the Flyers were 1 in done in 97 while Forsberg who we traded delivered a couple of cups and put together a hall of fame career. He will probably get in before Lindros does. At the time people were probably satisfied and saying the same things about Lindros..., worth it, the next one etc etc. In the end he didn't pan out and didn't HELP deliver a cup...period.

In the Rangers case where they mortgaged their future in Amonte and Weight for aging Oiler's players (Tikanen, Lowe, Messier etc) and Chicago players like Larmer they got a cup so maybe for the fans it was worth it but I'm sure in that 6 year playoff drought they were cursing up a storm. Again, IMO it's not that cut and dry just yet. I enjoyed the run but if it's another 1 and done then the novelty of the trade will wear out and this thread will be resurrected with a lot of what if's. That was the intention of the post.....it's for posterity sake. Let's all hope in the next two or three years there will be no doubt left that the trade was worth it. I just can't fathom how people can say right now with 100% certainty the trade "was worth it." With that kind of short term thinking there must be a lot of day traders on here....

The only way I see this trade ending up badly is if Sbisa turns out to be the next Lidstrom. In the Lindros trade, if not for Forsberg, who was relatively unknown at the time, that deal would have been completely in the Flyers' favor. What I mean is that the other players gave the Nordiques good depth, but aside from Ricci, no one really did much for the team. It was Forsberg that made that deal fall in the Nordiques favor, and he was not predicted to be as good as he turned out. Right now, Pronger is far better in his role than any of the players in that trade. In a few years, we'll see how Sbisa pans out; but even if he becomes a good #2 or #3, I think the Flyers win the trade (unless Pronger's skills erode quickly or he gets injured).

the pronger trade made us much much stronger. he had a good reg season, a bit of a slow start for team canada, but came on very strong. for a team with a 3-4 year window to win some cups, this trade was a necessity. as pierre Mcguire says this guy is a monster. no worries, after an offseason of snagging free agent college and euros, drafting a bit later in this draft, so at best some role players coming from this group. next year, we will be back to 1st round pick, and we/homer smashes homers with that pick, so we will once again fill the cupboard, and be the proud owner of chris pronger. that sounds pretty darn good to me.

The thing about these picks are, as long as Pronger stays healthy and doesn't break down (which won't be happening in the next 3 years imo) the Flyers first line picks will essentially be high second round picks.

And all those people with their reports and blah blah.
I guess reports are always true and all those experts now exactly what's going on in negotiations between two GMs.
And now I'm going to buy my Kovalchuk Flyers jersey...

The thing about these picks are, as long as Pronger stays healthy and doesn't break down (which won't be happening in the next 3 years imo) the Flyers first line picks will essentially be high second round picks.

And all those people with their reports and blah blah.
I guess reports are always true and all those experts now exactly what's going on in negotiations between two GMs.
And now I'm going to buy my Kovalchuk Flyers jersey...

No offense, but this is the dumbest logic for justifying giving up assets I've ever heard.

Think about it this way: if our first round picks are useless because they're equivalent to second round picks, then our second round picks are really third round picks, and so on. It doesn't make the fact that we don't have any good picks to replenish our prospect pool any easier to deal with. In fact, in a way it makes it worse. Because instead of still having 'high second round picks' (which are really first round picks), all we have are high third round picks (assuming we keep our second rounders, which Holmgren refuses to do).

I don't care how many people try to spin picks as useless, you need to draft well from all positions to be constantly successful, and no matter how good your scouting/drafting teams are, you still can't do it without picks.

In that trade, Philly gave away one asset that helped them now (Lupul), one in the near future (Sbisa), and two in the distant future (draft picks). All together, it would not have really hurt their team in the short-term if Pronger had not re-signed. But unless they won a cup, it would have been a little much for just one season of Pronger considering Philly could have moved players like Sbisa and the picks for other assets to get them to a Cup. But having Pronger signed for seven years is easily worth that package, especially considering where Philly is "mode-wise".